Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

June 21, 2019

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

One of LCM’s key areas of focus since its IPO has been the origination and execution of corporate portfolio transactions. The recent announcement of a portfolio funding partnership with a major aviation company, in which LCM will finance 38 worldwide disputes and contractual claims arising from the operations of the company for an initial 5-year rolling period, underscores the funder’s commitment to its corporate portfolio funding strategy. The transaction was led by Executive Vice Chairman Nick Rowles-Davies, who leads LCM’s EMEA team, comprised of some of the most experienced practitioners in the industry at corporate portfolio funding. Thanks to Rowles-Davies’ leadership and the team’s expertise, this is the second corporate portfolio transaction funded by LCM in past 12 months, and the first originating from the global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm announced in March. The first of LCM’s portfolio transactions was announced in October 2018, and was in the building and construction sector. LCM remains one of only a handful of funders to have completed such a transaction type. The funder also currently has eight other portfolio deals in the pipeline. Perhaps no better evidence could be proffered of litigation funding’s growing awareness and understanding amongst corporate clients – at least within certain capital-intensive industries. As Rowles-Davies puts it: “Everyone has heard of ‘litigation finance,’ but they don’t necessarily understand what it entails. To many, it still means bringing big claims against corporates and they don’t appreciate that it is a form of financing that can support a company by monetizing its legal assets, removing the risk of litigation, increasing EBITDA and keeping costs off the balance sheet. Some sectors are certainly more aware of the benefits available through the use of litigation funding and these are typically businesses in sectors that are high-volume, low-margin; for example, aviation, construction and outsourcing.” By financing multiple claims at once, funders like LCM reduce their risk profile, which results in a more attractive pricing structure for the client than when cases are funded on a one-off basis (one-off cases carry binary risk, therefore the cost of capital is higher). On this latest transaction, LCM has maintained the optionality to extend the number of cases it will finance, as well as the cumulative size of the financing available. “When we are structuring corporate portfolios for our clients, we look to be as flexible as possible and try to directly address the problem that they are looking to solve by providing a bespoke solution,” Rowles-Davies adds. “This provides businesses with complete optionality as to how they fund their disputes, moving to a position of using funding out of choice, rather than necessity. This is totally different from a single case situation where often a distressed and impecunious party is being funded.” London-based law firm Clyde & Co. helped arrange the funding partnership between LCM and the unnamed airline. This type of arrangement underscores the win-win nature of a partnership between a dedicated funder and an individual law firm. According to Rowles-Davies, this type of partnership “is not that common, but I suspect we will see more arrangements like it as funding becomes more widely used.” Rowles-Davies is quick to point out, however, that LCM has relationships with multiple law firms, and that agreements such as its partnership with Clyde & Co. don’t guarantee exclusivity. “This is about picking your partners carefully – we want to work with people who understand how LCM operates and what we’re looking for, and it takes time to develop that understanding.”

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.